Author Topic: Alternate Aerospace Threshold Theorycrafting (by Individual Weapon)  (Read 1356 times)

AlphaMirage

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4036
Razor Burn and Galactica had me thinking of more Warship rules changes that might balance the Aerospace game better.

There is no difference in weapon bay damage for thresholding purposes, but what if there was?
What if the threshold potential of a weapon bay was the AV of the most damaging individual weapon in its composition?

This would give the higher power, less bracketable NAC/40, NAC/30, NAC/25, and Naval Gauss weapons a solid use case as while they are less accurate at long range they can do critical damage.

Pocket Warships or other craft with Capital Missiles maintain their lower damage, interceptable, but still dangerous missiles as while a missile bay can no longer threshold most craft they have penetration ability.

Meanwhile the NPPCs and NAC/20-10s, which are the most bracketable, still have their closer range raw damage potential and extended range accuracy so they'd still be excellent choices to arm your ship, you just have to carve up more armor to break the ship.

Sub-Cap deployment on Large Craft would be basically unchanged too although it would give you a reason to take a Swordfish or Manta Ray SCap Missile and better differentiate the SCLs and SCCs which are presently more or less interchangeable, however the difference in threshold ability between 1-7 is huge against fighters or more likely assault dropships or carriers.

Additionally it would limit Aerospace Fighter's ability to damage large craft with small or medium laser and machine gun spam which is something of my biggest complaint with them. IMO you should need to take heavyweight weapons to threshold a large craft even if you could cut away large sections of armor with small weapon spam, its just surface damage. If you have small weapon spam for killing fighter's you'd need an Anti-Shipping Missile to actually cause a potential threshold crit that might seriously impede its effort.

Anyway that's my thoughts on the matter and seemingly something easy to implement that would help to alleviate some of my complaints with the Aerospace game.

Mechanis

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 142
Hm. On the one hand, I do like the idea, anything that pushes things so that "As many quad HNPPCs as will fit" is less the be-all end-all option is probably a good thing.

On the other hand, if you're going into the weeds of making serious changes to Aerospace then frankly I would be redoing WarShips at the very least with separate hit locations and internal structure, because like
Compartmentilzation is a thing guys
And likely going "1 point of capital is 1 ton with Standard" or something on that order; with the cap being point based rather than mass based so you don't get the Literally Made Of Magic Kleenex mass values of the canon designs. Or upping the difference to five to ten more orders of magnitude than just one.

Aerospace just has a lot of legacy issues caused by certain abstraction decisions and how much of it is things whose statistics were created prior to their construction and use rules, and when you start monkeying with it you pretty quickly get into the weeds of "well if I change this then I really need to change that and then this other thing doesn't make sense anymore and-"

AlphaMirage

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4036
Oh yes quite agreed Mechanis.

Making sectional Warships ala Mobile Structures is an interesting idea too and gives them more staying power in a Fleet Action. Even if you break a section all you've done is trap yourself in with the rest of the now Monitor Warship. As it likely wouldn't be able to jump without serious repairs, preferably from a Yardship as I think Fleet Logistics should be more of a thing especially with Warships.

Daryk

  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 41135
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Hm. On the one hand, I do like the idea, anything that pushes things so that "As many quad HNPPCs as will fit" is less the be-all end-all option is probably a good thing.
*snip*
Naval Laser AAA mode already pushes for something other than NPPCs, but I see your point.

DevianID

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2247
Naval Laser AAA mode already pushes for something other than NPPCs, but I see your point.
I would like this.  As is, there already is an optional rule (three different optional rules for standard to capital damage i think, god Aero is so weird) for how standard weapons on fighters interact with capital armor.  One of the exclusive special rules indeed has each weapon count for threshold on its own, where you need 12+ damage to guarantee you deal 1 damage to capital armor.  It makes AC20s and gauss rifles the only weapons that can hurt capital structure, which take armor damage divided by 2 round down... other weapons just roll for 12s to cause crits and scrub all the external armor off, unable to crack the structure in half/cause SI collapse.

I always liked that rule, and liked transits/lightnings in 3025 being anti-capital ship weapons platforms with the AC20 able to deal capital structure damage.  I also liked how for your other fighters weapons you would just be fishing for crits, to make the capital ship worthless hulks but not structurally destroyed 100,000 tons of metal.

Daryk

  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 41135
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Don't forget Blazer Cannons!  They also hit the magical 12 threshold... ;D

Mechanis

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 142
The usual thing I like to shoot for is "ASF feel like Infantry, DropShips feel like Comvees/SupVees (as appropriate to the military/civilian split) and WarShips feel like BattleMechs" in terms of respective durability.

So fighters die like flies once appropriate weapons get pointed at them, but if you don't have such weapons they can be surprisingly dangerous if used right, a DropShip might be able to cosplay as a WarShip but won't be able to match durability, and WarShips are often the single most durable thing on the field and can keep fighting even when very heavily damaged.
Oh yes quite agreed Mechanis.

Making sectional Warships ala Mobile Structures is an interesting idea too and gives them more staying power in a Fleet Action.
I mean, I was thinking more just, actually having fully separate hit locations with their own Structure Points that can be destroyed without otherwise impacting the rest of the ship, like a BattleMech

I even have put some thoughts into a three-phase damage chart, like so:
Code: [Select]
                                [Nose  Armor]
                                      ↓
                               [Nose Structure]
                          ↙ ↗        ↓ ↑          ↖ ↘
[FL Armor] → [FL Structure] ←→ [Fore Keel/Core] ←→ [FR Structure] ←→ [FR Armor]
                  ↑ ↓                ↓ ↑                ↓ ↑
[LB Armor] → [LB Structure] ←→ [Cen. Keel/Core] ←→ [RB Structure] ←→ [RB Armor]
                  ↑ ↓                ↓ ↑                ↓ ↑
[AL Armor] → [AL Structure] ←→ [Aft  Keel/Core] ←→ [AR Structure] ←→ [AR Armor]
                         ↖ ↘         ↓ ↑         ↙ ↗
                               [Aft Structure]
                                      ↑
                                 [Aft Armor]
In this design, you get complex damage transfer based on direction of fire and breakoff; so EG if you lose the Fore Keel, the nose is also lost, but you might keep one or both Fore Side locations. And you could saw the ship in half and potentially have it still be a threat, depending.
(Something something, rules about not being able to turn or accelerate hard with Keel damage and unsupported Structure and *especially* if the port or starboard Structure is the only thing holding the two ends together...)

Probably have the Keel as a fixed value of not especially large size derived from ship size/thrust, and then the exterior Structure replaces the adjustable SI value. Armor limit based on both, rules for thresholding the core through the surrounding Structure, systems/crits split between those as appropriate - the KF core being just part of the keel as the fluff, bridges being in the center core, et cetera.

Not only make the things more durable, but make it feel more like pounding on a couple hundred meters or outright over a kilometer of vessel, so you can have one section totally smashed to rubble and the other section on the opposite corner of the ship is just fine. Also makes it take some work to fully smash apart a ship, rather than most vessels crumpling like a soda can as soon as their armor is breached.

AlphaMirage

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4036
Sectional Warships
« Reply #7 on: 15 January 2025, 17:14:45 »
EDIT - You sniped me Mechanis I was just about to post this when you did

Going further with Mechanis Idea would a sectional warship have three (left, right, center), four (nose, left, right, aft), or six sections (nose, FR/FL, AR/AL, A)

I'd actually go for three with the Core section being the Jumpship Part (also Dropship Collars, Power Plant, Base Crew) while the left and right are 'extra' buffer sections (Vehicle Bays, Weapons, Cargo, passenger berths, etc...) that help to protect the middle part. I think doubling the armor potential (and not having weird capital armor types, just 1 CAP = 1 ton) would be sufficient as you do have extra SI (this would triple SI) already built in making Warships difficult to bring down.

I think six would be to many and four being kind of strange as it would make Warships behave like vehicles.

Additionally I think you should have the option to boost SI in Aerospace Fighters so a fast middleweight fighter won't shake itself apart at flank speed. Something which is just a terrible design decision but not the worst in Aerospace battle. It also gives ASF something worthwhile to devote their excess mass to (literally one of the most powerful per ton constructs in BT)

Mechanis

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 142
I experimented with "you can spend 10% mass like everyone else for SI>=Max Thrust and some Threshold boost while you're at it" as a sort of "Reinforced Structure but for ASF" thing

Re, WarShip hit locations:
I generally like my WarShips to be CHUNKY and require very significant effort to destroy; essentially having the 8 armor and Structure positions and then an internal 3-segment spine, or keel, or core, or citadel, or whatever you want to call it that's slightly more fragile

So EG, an outer location might have 100 points (10% mass again) and there's 8 of those, with the armor on top of them, and then below that there's a fore, middle and aft section that have say, 80 points each.
With damage being able to transfer to grid-adjacent sections depending on aspect of attack; IE, a shot from a T-cross to port might transfer from the aft to the aft left if the aft section is destroyed, while a shot from astern would go to the Aft center bit. And obviously anything that doesn't have at least one section of structure still attached breaks off (Roll To Not Have Secondary Damage From The Debris Smacking Into Other Bits Of The Ship), making sharp manuvers while only one section is holding the front half to the back half is a Bad Idea (Roll To Not Snap The Ship In Half Like A Twig), some stuff like collars that used to be "just wherever" get actual locations now, and such and so.
With the end goal of making it so things that have "take multiple nuclear warheads to the face and not be dead, or possibly even particularly damaged" as a design space goal can no longer be taken out easily by a pack of lunatics who strapped a cockpit and a bunch of lasers to a tiny fusion rocket that's smaller than the bloody RCS thrusters.

DevianID

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2247
If we had a cool record sheet for aerospace warships I think the system would benefit.  The record sheet for warships is just giant square blocks of armor, with a list of bays.  You (at least I) dont get a good sense of hit locations and crits, and the location to-hit roll is kinda silly for a ship hundreds of meters long.

Other games have ships with blocks that map the crit on them, that when damaged you cross off.  So even if nothing in the game changed rules wise, a record sheet with the crits laid out on the facing chart as locations/bubbles would give the ships much more character when being attacked.  It would be more fun to see the bubbles keyed to your bridge marked in red on the record sheet indicating each bridge hit.

Zematus737

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 227
    • Zem's google drive TRO's and BF
Re: Alternate Aerospace Threshold Theorycrafting (by Individual Weapon)
« Reply #10 on: 16 January 2025, 13:20:10 »
If we had a cool record sheet for aerospace warships I think the system would benefit.  The record sheet for warships is just giant square blocks of armor, with a list of bays.  You (at least I) dont get a good sense of hit locations and crits, and the location to-hit roll is kinda silly for a ship hundreds of meters long.

Other games have ships with blocks that map the crit on them, that when damaged you cross off.  So even if nothing in the game changed rules wise, a record sheet with the crits laid out on the facing chart as locations/bubbles would give the ships much more character when being attacked.  It would be more fun to see the bubbles keyed to your bridge marked in red on the record sheet indicating each bridge hit.

The weakness of a warship is in its crew requirements and needs.  Water, air, food and morale are never going to be tracked on a tactical level realistically, imo -- yet these are the beating hearts of these flying cities.  Cities historically fall more to internal division than to external threats.  The rules penalizing power core requirements for mobile structures should be much higher for structures in space.  This two should offset each other when a player chooses between crew and automation in their weapon systems choices.  Sections gets sealed off and no longer being functional should be thing.  Warships enjoy all the benefits of armor and weapons, but not so many setbacks.  All weapon systems fed off the single power source is drastic and I think local power amps for weapon bays should be a thing.  Otherwise reduce the available armor/structure respective to the amount of weight and space the energy grid would actually require to feed all these systems, possibly simultaneously.   Which brings me to Structural Integrity issues and how they are valued across the board for aerospace.  It's a mess and balance will never be achieved until we go back and look at SI as a weak spot rather than the magical creation of armor in the form of structure (A huge problem in Alpha Strike conversions that affect also Battleforce now).  That system worked with fighters.  It does not work well transferred over to warships.

Warships are too fast for how heavy they are.  They may not have to enter atmosphere and so enjoy higher armor and mass, but the KF drive should also increase in size, energy need, and cost by how large the vessel is.  To the point you would may require supplement power dedicated specifically to the KF drive.  Fire control systems should not give up free functionality because the bay does not exceed a made up number of 12 weapons.  They should be mandatory and scale up depending on their need.

Using the advanced rules to bring warships closer to mobile structures or advanced support vehicles is a step in the right direction.  Perhaps the same kind of record sheet can be used as well, solving various problems including design and generator locations. 
« Last Edit: 16 January 2025, 15:23:37 by Zematus737 »

Cannonshop

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11592
Re: Alternate Aerospace Threshold Theorycrafting (by Individual Weapon)
« Reply #11 on: 16 January 2025, 20:40:26 »
The weakness of a warship is in its crew requirements and needs.  Water, air, food and morale are never going to be tracked on a tactical level realistically, imo -- yet these are the beating hearts of these flying cities.  Cities historically fall more to internal division than to external threats.  The rules penalizing power core requirements for mobile structures should be much higher for structures in space.  This two should offset each other when a player chooses between crew and automation in their weapon systems choices.  Sections gets sealed off and no longer being functional should be thing.  Warships enjoy all the benefits of armor and weapons, but not so many setbacks.  All weapon systems fed off the single power source is drastic and I think local power amps for weapon bays should be a thing.  Otherwise reduce the available armor/structure respective to the amount of weight and space the energy grid would actually require to feed all these systems, possibly simultaneously.   Which brings me to Structural Integrity issues and how they are valued across the board for aerospace.  It's a mess and balance will never be achieved until we go back and look at SI as a weak spot rather than the magical creation of armor in the form of structure (A huge problem in Alpha Strike conversions that affect also Battleforce now).  That system worked with fighters.  It does not work well transferred over to warships.

Warships are too fast for how heavy they are.  They may not have to enter atmosphere and so enjoy higher armor and mass, but the KF drive should also increase in size, energy need, and cost by how large the vessel is.  To the point you would may require supplement power dedicated specifically to the KF drive.  Fire control systems should not give up free functionality because the bay does not exceed a made up number of 12 weapons.  They should be mandatory and scale up depending on their need.

Using the advanced rules to bring warships closer to mobile structures or advanced support vehicles is a step in the right direction.  Perhaps the same kind of record sheet can be used as well, solving various problems including design and generator locations.

Dropships are ALSO too fast for what they are.  This setting lacks Inertial Dampening or Inertial Compensation.  that means those 3/5 and 4/6 and higher ships are slamming people, loose objects, tools, and spare parts around like rocks in a tumbler-only these rocks break and bleed if they're not securely tied down.

Sustained High-Gee (higher than about 1.015) doesn't make you superman.  It gives you circulatory problems and arthritis instead, at best, and broken bones from simple accidents that you'd have brushed off from slips, trips, and falls.

On Clan ships, Harjel keeps the air in...guess what it also keeps in?

Fires.  anything you can mix into the atmosphere to prevent fires? will also suffocate your crew.

I like your idea of distributing systems ad criticals though-because that makes sense. 

I'd suggest a different 'record sheet' for units over a certain mass/volume regardless of jump status. 

A few years ago, I thought maybe a 'Doctrine' difference might also be useful but that gets into yet MORE complexity, and, being as doctrines may not be universal, the danger of some factions having different (better) choices regardless of the units they're running.  (mitigating critical hits, recovering from damage, etc.)

When trying to think it through, I kept running into MORE complicating factors that would make it even LESS attractive to the 'mechs only crowd.

"If you have to ask permission, then it's no longer a Right, it has been turned into a Privilege-something that can be and will be taken from you when convenient."

CloaknDagger

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3849
Re: Alternate Aerospace Threshold Theorycrafting (by Individual Weapon)
« Reply #12 on: 16 January 2025, 20:53:33 »
In this design, you get complex damage transfer based on direction of fire and breakoff; so EG if you lose the Fore Keel, the nose is also lost, but you might keep one or both Fore Side locations. And you could saw the ship in half and potentially have it still be a threat, depending.

Not to worry, we are still flying half a ship.

AlphaMirage

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4036
Re: Alternate Aerospace Threshold Theorycrafting (by Individual Weapon)
« Reply #13 on: 16 January 2025, 21:04:57 »
I agreed CloaknDagger

That's why I kinda like the three compartment version most as losing a single side is really bad but allows a ship to withdraw or surrender (or allow for boarding actions) rather than be trapped forcing a fight to the death since they can't escape the system.

Cannonshop unfortunately in all the fluff on Warships (which clutters up the SO IMO, better to leave that to a separate setting book) we don't get much actual information on shipboard operations. Although the jump pigeon is a funny bit of fluff.

I've always fluffed the compartments as being evacuated under battle conditions (Expanse style) to prevent fires from breaking out with integral blow out panels to redirect ammo explosions built into the weapon itself.

For gravity of course lockers would have be secured during high gee maneuvers on any spacecraft and you'd likely be tying down or clamping cargo on the floor and ceiling. Additionally I suspect although this would likely differ that each 'deck' is probably pretty 'shallow' to limit how much acceleration you generate before hitting a bulkhead.

I definitely do think a series of Jumpship/Warship/even Space Station sheet closer to the Support Naval Vessel/Mobile Structure version would be better for more massive ships (potentially starting at 3 and ending at 8 locations). Calculating SI then becomes a bit of a trick, perhaps it is distributed throughout the machine with any round up going to the center?

Cannonshop

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11592
Re: Alternate Aerospace Threshold Theorycrafting (by Individual Weapon)
« Reply #14 on: 16 January 2025, 21:19:17 »
I agreed CloaknDagger

That's why I kinda like the three compartment version most as losing a single side is really bad but allows a ship to withdraw or surrender (or allow for boarding actions) rather than be trapped forcing a fight to the death since they can't escape the system.

Cannonshop unfortunately in all the fluff on Warships (which clutters up the SO IMO, better to leave that to a separate setting book)

I've always fluffed the compartments as being evacuated under battle conditions (Expanse style) to prevent fires from breaking out with integral blow out panels to redirect ammo explosions built into the weapon itself.

For gravity of course lockers would have be secured during high gee maneuvers on any spacecraft and you'd likely be tying down or clamping cargo on the floor and ceiling. Additionally I suspect although this would likely differ that each 'deck' is probably pretty 'shallow' to limit how much acceleration you generate before hitting a bulkhead.

I definitely do think a series of Jumpship/Warship/even Space Station sheet closer to the Support Naval Vessel/Mobile Structure version would be better for more massive ships (potentially starting at 3 and ending at 8 locations). Calculating SI then becomes a bit of a trick, perhaps it is distributed throughout the machine with any round up going to the center?

I think it may depend on what you're building there.

A Warship/Jumpship's central core is going to be like the 'spine' of the ship.  the "Keel" if you will.  I'd go with a total of 9 locations at the base, laid around that Keel.

Because of the size, your hit location chart is VERY involved with facing, with a lot of "You can't hit that from here".

Each major location is armored separately, with its own SI.

'Engine' crits get replaced with "Thrust Units" and "Powerplants"-a ship, unlike a fighter, needs to have more than one just because you need to be able to take them offline for maintenance without killing the whole vessel-so your 'engine rating'  divides up into multiple powerplants distributed through the ship.

"Keel" would include your Jump-core, and anywhere from half, to all of your powerplants.  Drive units and thrusters could be broken down, but the total has to equal the value necessary to achieve flank speed.

Fuel, also has to be taken into consideration-battletech does not have thrustless motion outside the KF jump, and the KF Jump has very narrow conditions in which it works.

HOwever, fuel can be either centralized for ease of record-keeping, or distributed like someone intelligent would do, when they're designing something that WILL be shot at, and likely hit, at least a few times in conflict.

"If you have to ask permission, then it's no longer a Right, it has been turned into a Privilege-something that can be and will be taken from you when convenient."

FastConcentrate8

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 233
Re: Alternate Aerospace Threshold Theorycrafting (by Individual Weapon)
« Reply #15 on: 16 January 2025, 21:23:02 »
Dropships are ALSO too fast for what they are.  This setting lacks Inertial Dampening or Inertial Compensation.  that means those 3/5 and 4/6 and higher ships are slamming people, loose objects, tools, and spare parts around like rocks in a tumbler-only these rocks break and bleed if they're not securely tied down.

Sustained High-Gee (higher than about 1.015) doesn't make you superman.  It gives you circulatory problems and arthritis instead, at best, and broken bones from simple accidents that you'd have brushed off from slips, trips, and falls.

On Clan ships, Harjel keeps the air in...guess what it also keeps in?

Fires.  anything you can mix into the atmosphere to prevent fires? will also suffocate your crew.

I like your idea of distributing systems ad criticals though-because that makes sense. 

I'd suggest a different 'record sheet' for units over a certain mass/volume regardless of jump status. 

A few years ago, I thought maybe a 'Doctrine' difference might also be useful but that gets into yet MORE complexity, and, being as doctrines may not be universal, the danger of some factions having different (better) choices regardless of the units they're running.  (mitigating critical hits, recovering from damage, etc.)

When trying to think it through, I kept running into MORE complicating factors that would make it even LESS attractive to the 'mechs only crowd.

This is untrue. There have been studies done on human bodies in higher gravities. The most that was ever actually tested was prolonged exposure to 1.5G which had no long term issues. Most flight surgeons believe that you can push up to 2Gs sustained as the maximum a human body can sustain over a long period.

This means that a ship can sustain a 2G burn (4 thrust points per turn) indefinitely though would probably need to slow back down to conserve fuel.

As for faster Dropships, I tend to imagine that they use Crash couches a-la the Expanse and tend to cruise at 1 to 1.5Gs under normal conditions and then accelerate up to their real performance for combat.

Cannonshop

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11592
Re: Alternate Aerospace Threshold Theorycrafting (by Individual Weapon)
« Reply #16 on: 16 January 2025, 21:47:07 »
This is untrue. There have been studies done on human bodies in higher gravities. The most that was ever actually tested was prolonged exposure to 1.5G which had no long term issues. Most flight surgeons believe that you can push up to 2Gs sustained as the maximum a human body can sustain over a long period.

This means that a ship can sustain a 2G burn (4 thrust points per turn) indefinitely though would probably need to slow back down to conserve fuel.

As for faster Dropships, I tend to imagine that they use Crash couches a-la the Expanse and tend to cruise at 1 to 1.5Gs under normal conditions and then accelerate up to their real performance for combat.

Those surgeons were studying people strapped into acceleration couches, static, mostly prone to the axis of acceleration, with gee-suits.  if you want a practical demonstration, there's a thing called a 'Tiltawhorl" or whatever your local carnies named theirs. 

Multiple gees are not good for you, and WILL amplify any slips, trips, or falls you might have into broken bones.  There's a REASON bombers don't have 'standing desks' and fighters like F-16 prefer you be semi-prone in the cockpit.

I'll have to dig, but there are some very interesting papers from NASA on the effects of both low-gee, and sustained high-gee, and there's a 'model' of what a human-like being would have to be shaped like, to survive sustained gravity higher than one gee.

what works in an F-4 is NOT going to work on what amounts to a nuclear submarine with rocket engines.
"If you have to ask permission, then it's no longer a Right, it has been turned into a Privilege-something that can be and will be taken from you when convenient."

AlphaMirage

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4036
RE: Sectional Warships
« Reply #17 on: 16 January 2025, 22:03:39 »
The easier way would be for cargo and vehicle bays to be in a particular segment along with the associated door/etc.... If we go from say 3 (L,R,C <250kton) to 6 (FL/FR, AL/AR, N, A 250-750kton) to 8 (FL/FR, LB/RB, AL/AR, N, A 750kton -1.5MT) to 9 (FL/FR/N, LB/Keel/RB, AL/AR/A 1.5-2.5MT) to 13 (Dorsal/Ventral Wedge 1-6, Core >2.5MT) for the largest space station/asteroid base we can cover the full range of Void Craft/Objectives in a unified way. It might also allow for an expansion of the fuel efficiency and EWAR/Targeting Capacity for each increment rather than the very meager three divisions presently used while making space stations and jumpships more survivable.

Might look into this in my free time, building Void Craft as mobile structures does make some amount of sense and well if I was going to adjust Wet Naval ships in my Battlesea approach why not try for more asteroid bases and interesting space stations.

FastConcentrate8

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 233
Re: Alternate Aerospace Threshold Theorycrafting (by Individual Weapon)
« Reply #18 on: 16 January 2025, 22:36:03 »
Those surgeons were studying people strapped into acceleration couches, static, mostly prone to the axis of acceleration, with gee-suits.  if you want a practical demonstration, there's a thing called a 'Tiltawhorl" or whatever your local carnies named theirs. 

Multiple gees are not good for you, and WILL amplify any slips, trips, or falls you might have into broken bones.  There's a REASON bombers don't have 'standing desks' and fighters like F-16 prefer you be semi-prone in the cockpit.

I'll have to dig, but there are some very interesting papers from NASA on the effects of both low-gee, and sustained high-gee, and there's a 'model' of what a human-like being would have to be shaped like, to survive sustained gravity higher than one gee.

what works in an F-4 is NOT going to work on what amounts to a nuclear submarine with rocket engines.

Well, BT seems to work under the assumption that humans can live long term on planets with significantly Greater than 1G Gravity considering that we have multiple canon planets with >1G surface gravity and two planets in Clan Space with 2G surface Gravity and I have a feeling that it isn't just Elementals living on them.

Point being that I think in this instance, they've either handwaved long term gravitational effects on human populations or they're working off the findings of that long term study and assuming that 2Gs are the maximum long term gravitational range of the human body.

Either way, in BT a human crew is probably fine with their ship kicking up to 2Gs to get out of dodge or get going somewhere fast with the in universe assumptions.

FastConcentrate8

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 233
Re: RE: Sectional Warships
« Reply #19 on: 16 January 2025, 22:42:09 »
The easier way would be for cargo and vehicle bays to be in a particular segment along with the associated door/etc.... If we go from say 3 (L,R,C <250kton) to 6 (FL/FR, AL/AR, N, A 250-750kton) to 8 (FL/FR, LB/RB, AL/AR, N, A 750kton -1.5MT) to 9 (FL/FR/N, LB/Keel/RB, AL/AR/A 1.5-2.5MT) to 13 (Dorsal/Ventral Wedge 1-6, Core >2.5MT) for the largest space station/asteroid base we can cover the full range of Void Craft/Objectives in a unified way. It might also allow for an expansion of the fuel efficiency and EWAR/Targeting Capacity for each increment rather than the very meager three divisions presently used while making space stations and jumpships more survivable.

Might look into this in my free time, building Void Craft as mobile structures does make some amount of sense and well if I was going to adjust Wet Naval ships in my Battlesea approach why not try for more asteroid bases and interesting space stations.

I support this movement if for no other reason than we can finally build O'Neill Cylinders.

Daryk

  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 41135
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Alternate Aerospace Threshold Theorycrafting (by Individual Weapon)
« Reply #20 on: 16 January 2025, 22:51:18 »
To say the actual science around long term exposure to high-G environments "isn't settled" is an understatement to say the least!

FastConcentrate8

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 233
Re: Alternate Aerospace Threshold Theorycrafting (by Individual Weapon)
« Reply #21 on: 16 January 2025, 23:22:55 »
To say the actual science around long term exposure to high-G environments "isn't settled" is an understatement to say the least!

Hell, we don't even know what the Minimum Livable Gravity is other than 1G works and 0G doesn't. Would Lunar Gravity be fine? Mars? Could not even Venus, only 2% less than Earth not be enough?

We don't know because we've never been able to test it since permanent base plans on Luna got shot down and all attempts to put a gravity centrifuge in orbit haven't gotten far.

Cannonshop

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11592
Re: Alternate Aerospace Threshold Theorycrafting (by Individual Weapon)
« Reply #22 on: 17 January 2025, 09:29:12 »
Well, BT seems to work under the assumption that humans can live long term on planets with significantly Greater than 1G Gravity considering that we have multiple canon planets with >1G surface gravity and two planets in Clan Space with 2G surface Gravity and I have a feeling that it isn't just Elementals living on them.

Point being that I think in this instance, they've either handwaved long term gravitational effects on human populations or they're working off the findings of that long term study and assuming that 2Gs are the maximum long term gravitational range of the human body.

Either way, in BT a human crew is probably fine with their ship kicking up to 2Gs to get out of dodge or get going somewhere fast with the in universe assumptions.

Battletech, like most Space Operas, is about 5% more science than Star Wars, and 10% more than Lord of The Rings.  Most of the 'space' portion was informed not by science, or even known science, it's informed by watching Anime and B-roll movies, with occasional nods to novelizations of properties like Star Wars.

Basically less science than Niven's "Known Space" setting-which was published in the 1950s and 1960s or Pournelle's "Falkenberg's Legion" stories-which were, at least, contemporary to Battletech's era of creation, but not the type of sci-fi most of the people involved in designing the setting in the 1980s were even familiar with.

Mike Stackpole didn't KNOW that a fusion reaction from a reactor isn't like the fusion byproduct of a hydrogen bomb when he wrote that scene on (was it Twycross or Trell One?)-the exploding reactor scene.  (hint: a mini-tokamak wouldn't do that, something most famously pointed out by now-staff-member/contributor Cray, who is an actual Materials Physicist.)

but, it's canon, so it happened.

If you're going to be drawing from 'The Expanse' for inspiration, that's about 55% more Science than Battletech can likely handle and still keep most of the base assumptions going.

I pointed out the gravity limits for one reason:  "Why would you enter a system at the Zenith or Nadir jump points?"  The answer, is because if you're hauling ground troops (and face it mate, most of the Naval in the setting is just an expensive bus for ground troops) then you have to accept that your crew might be trained to handle High-gees and hard vacuum, but your passengers aren't.

and even if they are, as someone who's been on a troop transport aircraft for sustained hours? they ain't gonna stay sitting in the acceleration couches.  Loose objects becoming projectiles, including your passengers (the sole reason most dropships are in the air, along with many warships) is inevitable under hard thrust and gees.

This, will result in delivering stretcher cases instead of combat soldiers if you don't 'fly real careful and gentle with 'em'.

Basically Zenith and Nadir are the biggest, closest, stable points to the objective, ergo least amount of time spent at one gee, and least exposure for accidents to happen.

This is also going to inform all your naval design strategy-because?

Because Warships are there to get Ground Troops to the surface intact, along with their gear. That's the attitude IN the fiction-Navies are basically bus drivers, by the prevailing doctrine-and that doctrine prevails in every Great House, along with the Star League and the Clans.

it just happens that the existing designs, with their shirtsleeves environments, HarJel(for the Clans) and so on? fit that doctrine pretty solidly-the reason you don't have outer decks depressurizing, is that your ship is there to carry ground troops who don't come with their own pressure suits.

Your Commanding Officer on the ship? may have almost NO experience at space operations or deep space survival-because he's a 'mechwarrior, or an aerofighter pilot whose main experience is dogfighting in atmosphere, or a dropship jockey whose entire career has been landing and takeoff cycles onto planets.

Getting into more developed strategies and tactics navally, would require a source of personnel whose career focus isn't getting ground troops to the ground, then supporting them while there.

Tech-wise an 'expanse' style naval force is doable, it just doesn't fit the setting...at all.  (well, outside of fanfictions, anyway.  I love doing that in fanfic, but I'm under zero illusions that the kind of thinking I use would ever be in favor or adopted by anyone who Catalyst would offer a contract to.)

So, anyway, now that I've been a disruptive schmuck, let's get together and work out your DREAM naval rules, for games that Catalyst will never write, nor accept, nor likely play. 

because it's fun, and I can be wrong.
"If you have to ask permission, then it's no longer a Right, it has been turned into a Privilege-something that can be and will be taken from you when convenient."

Zematus737

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 227
    • Zem's google drive TRO's and BF
Re: Alternate Aerospace Threshold Theorycrafting (by Individual Weapon)
« Reply #23 on: 17 January 2025, 13:26:24 »
That was amazing Cannon.

Now.  How about using the TO:AUE Large Naval Vessel Templates as an example of carrying over the existing number of arcs over to the Mobile Structure Template just a few pages prior to it.  Perhaps the backside could be the Structure Record Sheet.  If you flip the Mobile Structure Temp sideways, you can fit it in the structure record sheet levels if you black out 0207,0407, and 0607.  If we can find a maximum amount of mass per hex we can extend the largest of the ship's through all 6 levels, using them as segments from nose to aft.

The power systems dependent upon a single source (as they do now) should run hexes continually from the reactor to each adjoining hex that requires power.  For example, a weapons bay on 0301 should require a power grid hex adjacent to it on 0201,0302, or 0401.  It would be very interesting to build a warship like this, as SI would use the maximum CF of the hex like normal structures would, with criticals working as they do in TO:AR pg118 Adv. Building Critical Damage.

Aerospace fighters should be the only ones that can make aimed shots that can strike individual hexes in an arc.  And maybe capital broadsides should affect all the hexes on an arc.

« Last Edit: 17 January 2025, 13:30:38 by Zematus737 »

Zematus737

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 227
    • Zem's google drive TRO's and BF
Re: Alternate Aerospace Threshold Theorycrafting (by Individual Weapon)
« Reply #24 on: 17 January 2025, 13:52:56 »
There are 354 hexes if you line them up straight and remove the bottom four hexes, 0207, 0407, 0607, 0807.  No one says we can keep these and ditch the mobile structure template entirely. 

The largest vessel that we know of is the Leviathan III at 2.4m tons.  That's 6779.66 tons per hex.  The 378, if you don't throw any out, comes to 6349.20 each hex.  Say 6500 tons a hex. 

A Fox would take up 37 hexes, rounded up.  If you keep them all it would be easier to just divide this value by 7 and see how many columns you need for each ship.  5, rounded down normally for the Fox.  If we base base each hex maximum against the largest ship's stats you can come up with some working estimates on armor too, i'm sure.

Zematus737

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 227
    • Zem's google drive TRO's and BF
Re: Alternate Aerospace Threshold Theorycrafting (by Individual Weapon)
« Reply #25 on: 17 January 2025, 15:22:13 »
Fox has 376 total armor.  Pulling a fore-side off of 67 armor to slap on throughout the the length of 5 side hexes comes to 13 armor to a hex.  If you apply structure values as they exist in structure for mechs at about a tenth of the available armor would give it 7 structure.  CF values on structures are usually higher than the armor they hold or equal.  May have to come up with a base CF for every hex depending on the class of the warship. 

If you use the max armor on Building Classification and Type Table in TO:AR you can apply CF by the amount of armor each hex would fall under.  An example would be the average of 13 armor per hex for a front side arc hex. It would place it under Fortress type and as a Gun Emplacement, the only option <16. 

Using naval figures in TO:AUE pg60, you get 30+(tonnage/2,000).  Where does the 30 come from?   If we take the total armor and divide that by then number of arcs we might get a working structure number to spread across alright.  376 armor for the Fox would bring it to 63, rounded normally.  This  number could take the place of that generic 30.  63+(240,000/2,000)=183 structure per hex?  Or should each arc be calculated separately with the same formula?  Nose:70 armor+(240,000/2,000)=190.  190 structure per nose hex.  I'm using the outer layer of hexes as the armor of the ship.  Or should these corner hexes disappear to make the arcs more discernible?  Anyway, having a CF baseline can already allow you to build within the limitations seen on pg.77 of TO:AUE.  But one NAC/40 is 4,500 tons by itself.  I guess the internal weight capacity has already been factored in the previous post.

A critical would be anything above 10% of the structure of a hex as the CF threshold.  Crit table for adv. buildings is on pg.119 TO:AR.  So, about 20 for a Fox.  If capital damage is not focused to a single hex (as I believe it shouldn't be from any weapon based on multiple projectiles or traveling beams), crits may be more difficult to achieve but would be the greatest damage potential, as they are with mechs.
« Last Edit: 17 January 2025, 16:15:02 by Zematus737 »

Zematus737

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 227
    • Zem's google drive TRO's and BF
Re: Alternate Aerospace Threshold Theorycrafting (by Individual Weapon)
« Reply #26 on: 17 January 2025, 15:40:14 »
A heavy Mass Driver would take up 15 hexes of space if each hex had only 6500 tons to contribute.  The entire idea is pretty cool, as you can see where each part and weapon is placed.  All weapons should begin on the outer edges.

idea weenie

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5120
Re: Alternate Aerospace Threshold Theorycrafting (by Individual Weapon)
« Reply #27 on: 19 January 2025, 01:38:49 »
What if weapons do different amounts of Threshold based on their type?  I.e. energy weapons will do very little vs Threshold, while ballistic weapons do a lot of damage vs Threshold.  Similarly, Armor barely contributes to Threshold while Internal Structure provides Threshold.

Larger ships can carry larger Weapon Bays.  Mass/(10,000) is max bay damage?

Larger ships can carry more weapons before Fire Control Limitations kick in?

Sensor ranges are based on the length of the vessel, so a 800 kton vessel will have 2* the inherent sensor range of a 100 kton vessel.

A Neutrino Detector is a set of sensors around the KF Core.  This is little more than stating you need X% of the vessel's tonnage to provide the neutrino detection capability.  The Neutrino Detector detect presence/number in a lot of locations if the ship is side-on to the sources, but you need to point the KF Core directly towards the planet to figure out which BattleMech map a specific neutrino source is located on.  Length of the vessel will affect the distance that the signal can be resolved, similar to the Sensor ranges above.

Armor mass per pt of protection is based on length of the vessel plus any surface items that are added (i.e. Bay Doors, Dropship Collars, extra Heat Sinks).  This allows for larger hulls to get more protection for the same % of their hull allocated to armor.  Similarly Larger hulls will have a lower per-ton heat dissipation compared to smaller hulls (i.e. eight 100-kton Warships will be able to dissipate 2* the heat compared to a single 800-kton Warship, all else being identical).

As much as possible will be equation-based rather than breakpoint based (i.e. look at the Fuel consumption chart).

You can put a KF Drive on a Dropship, but it will be REALLY expensive (roughly 4 billion for a KF Core, multiplied by the current x36 Aerodyne Dropship multiplier.)

Redo the KF Core costs so the KF Core for a 200 kton Warship will be more than twice the price of a KF Core for a 100 kton Warship.

Space Stations and Satellites use the same mass range (from 5 kg to over 2.5 million tons), the key is that Satellites are not designed to provide a custom interior environment while Space Stations are.  So Satellites would be cheaper on a per-ton basis, but anything needing a custom environment will be very expensive (i.e. SRCS, Quarters, etc).  Space Stations would be higher per ton in general but no extra fee for custom environments (and the Space Station multiplier would be lower than the Satellite's multiplier).

Space Stations would have additional cost multipliers are based on their location/security.  A space station built over an industrialized capital will be relatively cheap, while a space station built in an uninhabited system under high security will be very expensive.  These could be in Strategic rules and a note put in the regular Space Station rules stating that the costs listed for vessels are due to them being built in an industrial system with full support and visibility to the locals.

Allow Space Stations to go above 2.5 million tons.  Also let them have more than 1 pt of Structural Integrity so you can have clumsy battle stations.

Allow vessels to mount weapons that are far more massive that provide s little more range.

ASF will be more likely to survive a fight if they are in squadrons.  This is mainly to reduce the number of ASF markers on the map as players will try to combine ASF markers before the enemy weapons remove the ASF markers.

If a weapons arc has multiple weapons in it, then you need to note how many weapons are in it.  I.e. an AC/20 and four ML will both do 20 pts of damage at up to 9 hexes, but the ML array will have a column telling that there are four weapons in it.

Dropships and Warships can mount resistive armor that ignores the first few pts of damage from each weapon.  So if a Dropship had 3 pts of Resistive armor and was hit by 4 ML, then it would only take 8 pts of damage (20 - 4*3).  The AC/20 being fired at the same armor would do 17 pts of damage.  Basically if you are going hunting for heavy Warships, you need to bring heavy weapons.  Internal Structure does not have this resistive effect, so once the armor is remove from a location expect enemy ASF to be swarming to attack that arc.

Enhanced Redundancy - this vessel is designed to receive enemy fire and keep functioning in limited fashion instead of complete failure.  Using engines as an example this results in more but smaller engines instead of single or very few larger engine bells.  It now requires twice as many critical hits to lose Thrust points as before, but the extra structure and less-efficient design means the engines mass more than normal (amount TBD).


So many other ideas in my head.
« Last Edit: 19 January 2025, 16:04:57 by idea weenie »

Zematus737

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 227
    • Zem's google drive TRO's and BF
Re: Alternate Aerospace Threshold Theorycrafting (by Individual Weapon)
« Reply #28 on: 20 January 2025, 01:57:02 »
Larger ships can carry larger Weapon Bays.  Mass/(10,000) is max bay damage?

Larger ships can carry more weapons before Fire Control Limitations kick in?

The bays are limited by the amount of total damage they do before fire control systems need to be added.  It's 700 standard (70 capital).  The other limitation is 20 weapons per arc.  They're both quite high and part of the armor issue is not necessarily the vessel size, as the maximum amount of armor a warship can slap on depends upon the Structural Integrity.  This is a problem, since you can increase the SI at will from what is the base value of its max thrust and up to the maximum value of 30 times that.  Most warships will be 3 safe and so 5 will set the ceiling at 150.  It's a weird way to figure SI, but the amount of armor a vessel can bear relies heavy on the SI value you choose.  Even then, the mass of the structure is not ever close to the amount of structure that a naval submersible would be at aprox. 90% of its total weight.  A warship already has a high mass for the KF drive at about nearly half it's mass.  I think the issue we're experiencing is not necessarily the weapon systems, but how armor and structure are distributed along the arcs.  The problems only get worse with Alpha Strike when the tactical armor values, which are really already capital class armor, are getting the flat conversions equal to normal armor values of all other types of units.  I have no idea why this is.  The armor, if it was going to be converted, should have been multiplied by 10 first, then the 33% should have taken over from there.  As it is, the existing conversion is a disaster and makes all warships bearing capital class weapons a veritable glass cannon.  I just can't help but laugh at it.  It's gotta change.  But until then I have drawn up some figures on how armor and structure can be reimagined for capital class units more along the lines of structures.  I'm mainly working on bringing this over to the strategic theater and avoiding the armor conversion all together, as I no longer think it is needed when weapon systems have been converted already to 1/10 and are strategic scale ready for capital class conflict. And even if no one else adopts it, my excitement over what the numbers look like makes me feel it will work very well without too much effort.  I'll try to scan the record sheet by Tuesday and see what you guys think. 

As things stand now, construction rules are far too lenient and loose for warships.  They're getting a lot of free heat sinks, a lot of free fire control, free comm. equipment (5 tons), and even free armor additions to structure.  Even then, heat sinks are nothing in comparison to the weight you can play with.  You can add thousands more and maybe slightly tickle the remaining mass pool--or not even bother as you can skimp on heat sinks when you only require enough to fire the arcs you will be using on a single turn.  A limitation that doesn't transfer over to Alpha Strike, by the way.  The capital weapons and extra docking collars are the biggest mass hogs as far as I can see.

idea weenie

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5120
Re: Alternate Aerospace Threshold Theorycrafting (by Individual Weapon)
« Reply #29 on: 20 January 2025, 03:06:25 »
The bays are limited by the amount of total damage they do before fire control systems need to be added.  It's 700 standard (70 capital).  The other limitation is 20 weapons per arc.  They're both quite high and part of the armor issue is not necessarily the vessel size, as the maximum amount of armor a warship can slap on depends upon the Structural Integrity.  This is a problem, since you can increase the SI at will from what is the base value of its max thrust and up to the maximum value of 30 times that.  Most warships will be 3 safe and so 5 will set the ceiling at 150.  It's a weird way to figure SI, but the amount of armor a vessel can bear relies heavy on the SI value you choose.  Even then, the mass of the structure is not ever close to the amount of structure that a naval submersible would be at aprox. 90% of its total weight.  A warship already has a high mass for the KF drive at about nearly half it's mass.  I think the issue we're experiencing is not necessarily the weapon systems, but how armor and structure are distributed along the arcs.  The problems only get worse with Alpha Strike when the tactical armor values, which are really already capital class armor, are getting the flat conversions equal to normal armor values of all other types of units.  I have no idea why this is.  The armor, if it was going to be converted, should have been multiplied by 10 first, then the 33% should have taken over from there.  As it is, the existing conversion is a disaster and makes all warships bearing capital class weapons a veritable glass cannon.  I just can't help but laugh at it.  It's gotta change.  But until then I have drawn up some figures on how armor and structure can be reimagined for capital class units more along the lines of structures.  I'm mainly working on bringing this over to the strategic theater and avoiding the armor conversion all together, as I no longer think it is needed when weapon systems have been converted already to 1/10 and are strategic scale ready for capital class conflict. And even if no one else adopts it, my excitement over what the numbers look like makes me feel it will work very well without too much effort.  I'll try to scan the record sheet by Tuesday and see what you guys think. 

As things stand now, construction rules are far too lenient and loose for warships.  They're getting a lot of free heat sinks, a lot of free fire control, free comm. equipment (5 tons), and even free armor additions to structure.  Even then, heat sinks are nothing in comparison to the weight you can play with.  You can add thousands more and maybe slightly tickle the remaining mass pool--or not even bother as you can skimp on heat sinks when you only require enough to fire the arcs you will be using on a single turn.  A limitation that doesn't transfer over to Alpha Strike, by the way.  The capital weapons and extra docking collars are the biggest mass hogs as far as I can see.

700 Standard points of damage can be achieved with 140 Medium Lasers, or even 234 Small Lasers.
20 weapons per arc can be achieved with two HNPPC and 18 AMS.

This would also be the reason for smaller and larger ships having different Bay and Arc limits, the vessels have different amounts of surface area.  So instead of a 100 kton vessel having a Bay limit of 70 capital pts, it might have a Bay Limit of 10 pts (but you can always fit at least one capital weapon per Bay).  A 2.4 MTon Leviathan warship would have a Bay limit of 240 pts.  The Weapons per arc limit might be 1 per 30-40 ktons, to avoid the break point being identical to the Docking Collar break points.  Currently a both 100 kton Warship and a 2.4 MTon Warship both have a limitation of 20 weapons per arc before Fire Control tonnage comes into play.  As a result one design idea is to put your 20 largest Weapons in the Fore-Left/Right and Aft-Left/Right, and the rest of the weapons in the Fore, Broadside, and Aft arcs so the Fire Control tonnage is based on the far smaller weapons.


As to Structural Integrity vs armor capacity, I would like to separate them.  My idea would be that you can mount as much structural integrity as you want, no matter your engine rating.  Similarly, you would be able to mount as much armor as you want, no matter your structural rating.

There would be two types of Structural Integrity, and they would not be limited by Engine rating:
* Propulsion SI - used to support the vessel while the main engines are on or the ship is rotating.  Damage to this Structure means if you don't have enough remaining, you have to reduce your engine output before your ship looks like a 'V'.
* Threshold Structure - used to support the ship's armor so impacts are transmitted to the rest of the hull instead of the armor folding under a heavy hit.  This is what provides better Threshold rating for armor vs using more armor

You could put as many tons of each as you choose, but tonnage for these is less tonnage available for everything else (weapons, ammo, ASF, etc).  So if you don't expect to face a lot of weapons that are good vs Threshold, you might skimp on the Threshold Structure and just go with layers of armor.  Civilian Dropships might prefer this as it will keep cargo tonnage up and they expect pirates to be packing at most AC/10 for anti-shipping purposes.  Armor can be easily layered on the outside of a vessel, allowing you to turn a Mule freight hauler into a Q-ship.  But once the opponent catches on and sends Gauss Rifle and AC/20 armed craft, that Mule becomes a pinata.


For Warships, the reason armor isn't a bigger mass hog is that the current design rules limit you to a certain amount of armor related to the Structural Integrity.  Look at the various canon and fan designs to see how many do not have maximum armor for their size.

Or look at it the other way: assuming a 3/5 ship with maximum Structural Integrity, what is the maximum percent of a ship's hull that can be used for armor?